Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Diane Ravitch On Teacher Preparation and Testing

Two quick important takes from this must read Diane Ravitch piece at the New York Review of Books:

First on testing,

The main mechanism of school reform today is to identify teachers who can raise their students’ test scores every year. If the scores go up, reformers assume, then the students will enroll in college and poverty will eventually disappear. This will happen, the reformers believe, if there is a “great teacher” in every classroom and if more schools are handed over to private managers, even for-profit corporations.

Finland provides yet another reminder that testing doesn’t produce results nor does it serve as a proper determinant of merit pay. Then on teacher preparation,

Finland’s highly developed teacher preparation program is the centerpiece of its school reform strategy. Only eight universities are permitted to prepare teachers, and admission to these elite teacher education programs is highly competitive: only one of every ten applicants is accepted. There are no alternative ways to earn a teaching license. Those who are accepted have already taken required high school courses in physics, chemistry, philosophy, music, and at least two foreign languages. Future teachers have a strong academic education for three years, then enter a two-year master’s degree program. Subject-matter teachers earn their master’s degree from the university’s academic departments, not—in contrast to the US—the department of teacher education, or in special schools for teacher education. Every candidate prepares to teach all kinds of students, including students with disabilities and other special needs. Every teacher must complete an undergraduate degree and a master’s degree in education.

Because entry into teaching is difficult and the training is rigorous, teaching is a respected and prestigious profession in Finland. So selective and demanding is the process that virtually every teacher is well prepared. Sahlberg writes that teachers enter the profession with a sense of moral mission and the only reasons they might leave would be “if they were to lose their professional autonomy” or if “a merit-based compensation policy [tied to test scores] were imposed.” Meanwhile, the United States is now doing to its teachers what Finnish teachers would find professionally reprehensible: judging their worth by the test scores of their students.

Finland’s national curriculum in the arts and sciences describes what is to be learned but is not prescriptive about the details of what to teach or how to teach it. The national curriculum requires the teaching of a mother tongue (Finnish or Swedish), mathematics, foreign languages, history, biology, environmental science, religion, ethics, geography, chemistry, physics, music, visual arts, crafts, physical education, health, and other studies.

The whole article needs to be read, but I would like to make two quick observations. First, neither the South Dakota legislature nor U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan are doing anything to get the state or nation close to Finland's teacher prep standards. Second, although STEM classes are important parts of the curriculum, it also focuses on philosophy, history, and art. Again, the U.S. seems willing to assign those areas of study to the dustbin.

The reformers don’t care that standardized tests are prone to measurement error, sampling error, and other statistical errors.1 They don’t seem to care that experts like Robert L. Linn at the University of Colorado, Linda Darling-Hammond at Stanford, and Helen F. Ladd at Duke, as well as a commission of the National Research Council, have warned about misuse of standardized tests to hold individual teachers accountable with rewards or sanctions. Nor do they see the absurdity of gauging the quality of a teacher by the results of a multiple-choice test given to students on one day of the year.

The Obligitory Job Saving Disclaimer

The views presented here are solely my own. Nothing written on this blog should be construed by any living organism as the opinion of any past or current employer, spouse, sibling, parent, child, cousin, ancestor, or descendant. In short no one known or unknown to me whether they be living or dead should be linked either positively or negatively with the opinions I have written.

I reserve the right to change my mind and contradict what I said yesterday if someone proves me wrong.